(CNN)– A new video billboard in New York's Times Square has a message from creationists, "To all of our atheist friends: Thank God you're wrong."

The video advertisement at 42nd Street and Eighth Avenue in Manhattan is one of several billboards going up this week in New York, San Francisco and Los Angeles, paid for by Answers in Genesis.

Answers in Genesis is best known as the multimillion-dollar Christian ministry behind the Creation Museum outside Cincinnati.

The museum presents the case for Young Earth creationism, following what it says is a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis, which says the Earth was created by God in six days less than 10,000 years ago.

Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, said the idea for the advertisements came from an atheist billboard in Times Square at Christmas.

During the holidays, the American Atheists put up a billboard with images of Santa Claus and Jesus that read: "Keep the Merry, dump the myth."

“The Bible says to contend for the faith,” Ham said. “We thought we should come up with something that would make a statement in the culture, a bold statement, and direct them to our website.

"We're not against them personally. We're not trying to attack them personally, but we do believe they're wrong," he said.

"From an atheist's perspective, they believe when they die, they cease to exist. And we say 'no, you're not going to cease to exist; you're going to spend eternity with God or without God. And if you're an atheist, you're going to be spending it without God.' "

"They refuse to look at the real world. They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said. "They might as well be saying, 'Thank Zeus you're wrong' or 'Thank Thor you're wrong.' "

Silverman said he welcomed another competitor to marketplace, noting that after atheists bought a billboard two years ago in Times Square that read "You KNOW it's a myth," the Catholic League purchased competing space at the entrance to the Lincoln Tunnel for a sign that read "You KNOW it's true."

"I would suggest, if they're actually trying to attract atheists, they should talk about proof and reason to believe in their god, not just some pithy play on words," Silverman said.

Ham says part of the goal of the campaign is to draw people to the website for Answers in Genesis, where he offers a lengthy post on his beliefs for the proof of God.

Ham insists that this campaign is in keeping with their overall mission. "We're a biblical authority ministry. We're really on about the Bible and the Gospel. Now, we do have a specialty in the area of the creation account and Genesis because that's where we say God's word has come under attack."

Ham said Answers in Genesis made the decision to split its marketing budget for the ministry between a regional campaign for the museum and this billboard campaign, rather than a national campaign.

IRS filings for the ministry in recent years have shown a yearly operating budget of more than $25 million. Ham said the marketing budget is about 2% of that, about $500,000 a year. Though they are waiting for all the bills to come due for this campaign, he said he expected it to cost between $150,000 and $200,000.

Silverman noted that his billboards were not video and cost approximately $25,000 last year. He said another campaign was in the works for this year.

"They're throwing down the gauntlet, and we're picking it up," Silverman said, adding that his group would "slap them in the face" with it.

Ham said that despite criticism from other Christians for being negative and the usual criticisms from secularists he received on his social media accounts, the advertisements have been a success.

"We wanted people talking about them, and we wanted discussion about this. We wanted people thinking about God," Ham said.

The Creation Museum and the theory of Young Earth creationism are widely reviled by the broader science community.

In a YouTube video posted last year titled "Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children," Bill Nye the Science Guy slammed creationism, imploring parents not to teach it to their children. "We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future," he said. "We need engineers that can build stuff and solve problems."

For as long as Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years.

The Creation Museum said it recently welcomed its 2 millionth visitor since its opening in 2007.

soundoff(8,748 Responses)

The Truth

Dealing with atheists is actually easy to do. They don't have any evidence for their atheism, and they can't logically prove there is no God. They can only attack the Bible and attack Christians' ideas of God. But, if you listen to them, you can soon find that their logic has many holes in it. It takes practice, but you can do it.

Why *I* believe is not relevant. You claimed that you can spot holes in atheism. Surely you've collected a list that you can share with everyone.

October 31, 2013 at 9:14 pm |

The Truth

Well, if you can't demonstrate your belief is based on evidence or rational basis... I guess this conversation is over?

October 31, 2013 at 9:19 pm |

HotAirAce

But you started this by saying you could poke holes in atheism! Why can't *you* backup *your* claim with a list of the most common holes in atheist logic along with supporting facts?

October 31, 2013 at 9:24 pm |

The Truth

I said atheists don't have any evidence for their atheism, and they can't logically prove there is no God. They can only attack the Bible and attack Christians' ideas of God. But, if you listen to them, you can soon find that their logic has many holes in it.
You aren't talking. I don't know what you base your atheism on. It could be because you are trying to impress some girl, for all I know.

October 31, 2013 at 9:29 pm |

HotAirAce

I haven't made any claims other than that you should be able to provide a list of holes with supporting facts. I think you are just trying to start an argument. And I suppose you can prove that some god, even just one, exists, but I suspect that asking you to do that is a waste of time.

October 31, 2013 at 9:37 pm |

Observer

The Truth

An atheist's point:
"I said believers don't have any evidence for their beliefs, and they can't logically prove there is a God. They can only attack nonbelievers and attack nonbelievers' ideas of no God. But, if you listen to them, you can soon find that their logic has many holes in it."

Same type of argument from both directions. So what was your point?

October 31, 2013 at 9:37 pm |

The Truth

Why are you an atheist? Is it based on logic? Or what atheism is typically based on: faith?

October 31, 2013 at 9:44 pm |

Observer

The Truth,

I am an agnostic (not atheist) because I have read enough of the Bible to see that besides some good morals, it also contains many errors, contradictions, nonsense and hypocrisy.

October 31, 2013 at 9:51 pm |

The Truth

What do you consider nonsense or contradictory in the Bible?

October 31, 2013 at 9:54 pm |

Observer

The Truth,

No one can explain the science fiction of the Noah's Ark story without suspending logic, common sense, and a load of the laws of science.

October 31, 2013 at 9:58 pm |

The Truth

The story of Noah is a lot like an atheist trying to logically explain the existence of the universe. It takes a lot of faith, not much logic or reason.

Unless god is a sadomasochistic penis, since he is described as omnipotent, omniscient, and loving, he should have made Hitler burst into flames during one of his hate speeches. Having failed to do that I can only assume he is neither loving, omniscient, or omnipotent. the bursting into flames thing, combined with a little cloud graphic of course, if filmed, would convince non-believers like myself of god's existence and prevented a war and genocide. But maybe he has ADHD and is only moved to action only when an invisible pink unicorn named Godprod pokes god in the rear. Godprod maybe mad at god for leaving him out of Genesis altogether, and so doesn't help god do what he should anymore. Just trying to work out the apologetics on this one.

October 31, 2013 at 10:30 pm |

Cpt. Obvious

Why does any one need to explain the existence of the universe? It exists, and that's what matters. I am honest enough to know that we have no idea "how" the universe came to be and I am humble enough to admit it. I guess if I were arrogant and ignorant I might imagine that It came about as some big invisible sky wizard chanted magic spells for six days.

October 31, 2013 at 10:56 pm |

The Truth

Thanks Cpt Obvious for admitting you don't have any evidence for atheism, and that you can't logically prove there is no God. You demonstrated you can only attack the Bible and attack Christians' ideas of God.
You just proved my point.

October 31, 2013 at 10:59 pm |

Cpt. Obvious

I just so happen to be an atheist, but really that's not nearly as important as god's irrelevance. He is irrelevant because we cannot prove that he interacts with the natural world. He is invisible, undetectable, and provably irrelevant.

October 31, 2013 at 10:59 pm |

Cpt. Obvious

I am an atheist because I do not believe in any gods. I would gladly believe in any gods if they were shown to exist or shown likely to exist. I would follow the evidence. But there is no evidence for god, so I lack belief. Of course, I do not claim certainty, so I am an agnostic atheist who neither claims to have spiritual knowledge nor believes with or without that claim to spiritual knowledge.

There is no evidence for unicorns, so I am logical to not believe in them. Same for your god. I hold the logically superior position, but you, on the other hand, do not seem to understand what logic is. Maybe you're just stupid, but perhaps you can learn. As you argue now, though, I'm glad you're on the other team.

October 31, 2013 at 11:03 pm |

The Truth

In your life. But you can't make that claim about other's lives. Unless you want to go down the road of arrogance. (Many religious and atheists do go down that road!)

October 31, 2013 at 11:05 pm |

Cpt. Obvious

Every inmate at the asylum claims to have his own personal evidence for his delusions that no one else can detect. Real evidence is verifiable by independent measurement regardless of what the experimenter believes.

October 31, 2013 at 11:10 pm |

The Truth

No you are just resorting to petty and immature attacks.

October 31, 2013 at 11:14 pm |

Cpt. Obvious

No, you are running and hiding because you now have no place to stand. You have no verifiable evidence at all, and you want everyone to bow down to your feelings on the matter.

I need no evidence because I make no claim. You make a claim without any evidence and fail to see how illogical you are. No wonder you're so angry.

October 31, 2013 at 11:17 pm |

The Truth

I don't have enough faith to believe in your nothingness and opinion that you are right.

October 31, 2013 at 11:20 pm |

Cpt. Obvious

I would never expect you to have faith in such stupid things as "nothingness" and my "opinion." Yuck! That's ridiculous.

October 31, 2013 at 11:23 pm |

Doris

Is that Nothingness' Last Finale?

October 31, 2013 at 11:29 pm |

Doris

I googled that to see if google might suggest a correction, but that was asking too much; lol.

October 31, 2013 at 11:31 pm |

bostontola

I can't speak for all atheists, but I go after Christian religious beliefs because they are easy to disprove. The bible factual errors in the creation myth, the period morals in bible (slavery, punish descendants for parents crime, etc) are strong evidence for the fallacy of Christianity. Every other religion has similar flaws in their scripture.

But don't get me wrong, I don't think Christian religion is void of good. I like the Protestant work ethic and it's deferred gratification principles. They are excellent principles for a productive society. Catholic notions of second chances and their effort to square their beliefs with science are good. Of course the philanthropic activities are good as well.

October 31, 2013 at 9:26 pm |

The Truth

Christianity and other religions are susceptible to error and flaws, yes. Is atheism free from errors and flaws? And how does that logically demonstrate there is no God?

October 31, 2013 at 9:39 pm |

bostontola

Atheism has no dogma or doctrine, so m not sure what you are referring to. Every atheist is wrong sometimes in the same way every human is wrong sometimes.

October 31, 2013 at 9:43 pm |

bostontola

2nd question. There have been hundreds of religions and thousands of gods worshiped in history. The dogma associated with all but 1 sect must be wrong. That is overwhelming evidence, don't you think? No proof, but a lot of evidence. As science compiles more knowledge, the more the universe is explained with no need for a supernatural element. Again, not proof, but a lot of evidence.

October 31, 2013 at 9:48 pm |

The Truth

Dogma or doctrine is not a requirement for belief in God. You made a point that you feel superior to Christians because they have flaws and have made errors. But you are basically saying they are very human, like you? You really aren't superior?

October 31, 2013 at 9:48 pm |

bostontola

Truth,
I don't think any human is superior to another, just that religions are wrong.

October 31, 2013 at 9:50 pm |

The Truth

And you are right?

October 31, 2013 at 9:53 pm |

bostontola

There is a vast amount of objective evidence supporting my beliefs, and no objective evidence supporting any religion's god.

October 31, 2013 at 9:55 pm |

The Truth

You don't have to accept any religion. Following atheism is just as illogical and unreasonable as following the wrong religion.

October 31, 2013 at 9:57 pm |

bostontola

Truth,
There is nothing illogical about atheism given the evidence. That doesn't make atheism right, but it is fully logical given what objective evidence exists. We don't know everything, so there is no proof either way, just a ton of evidence for atheism, no objective evidence for any god. If there is a god, there is really no evidence it get involved in human affairs. In that case, god is irrelevant to humans.

October 31, 2013 at 10:03 pm |

The Truth

You personally are not convinced. But you have not seen all the evidence. Atheism is still illogical and not based on evidence or rational basis.

October 31, 2013 at 10:10 pm |

Observer

The Truth

"Atheism is still illogical and not based on evidence or rational basis."

And people turning into salt and the moon stopping still is "logical and rational"?

Please get serious.

October 31, 2013 at 10:13 pm |

The Truth

I never said those things were logical. Just because you reject those illogical things, doesn't make your illogical and highly unlikely atheist viewpoint logical.

October 31, 2013 at 10:18 pm |

bostontola

Truth, you assert atheism is illogical. I claim it is totally logically consistent with all objective evidence. To disprove my assertion, you only need to show me 1 instance where atheism conflicts with objective evidence.

October 31, 2013 at 10:21 pm |

Observer

The Truth

"I never said those things were logical'

You asked why I was an atheist/agnostic. I explained that it was because the Bible contains errors, contradictions, nonsense and hypocrisy.

It appears that you are getting much closer to understanding why I am an agnostic.

October 31, 2013 at 10:22 pm |

HotAirAce

So, you've shown that you cannot provide a simple list of holes in atheism with supporting facts. And now you claim that atheists have not seen all the evidence for your god. I suspect I'm wasting my time but please provide a list of your evidence with supporting facts.

October 31, 2013 at 10:24 pm |

The Truth

My beliefs are exactly like atheist beliefs. They are not based in logic or rational basis.

October 31, 2013 at 10:29 pm |

bostontola

Atheist beliefs are based on objective evidence and are logically consistent.

October 31, 2013 at 10:31 pm |

Observer

The Truth

"My beliefs are exactly like atheist beliefs. They are not based in logic or rational basis."

Atheists ONLY have one belief in common and that is that God does not exist. Even you agree that the ONE BOOK that supposedly is the word of God is missing logic.

October 31, 2013 at 10:34 pm |

HotAirAce

Anyone else think we just went down the rabbit hole?

October 31, 2013 at 10:34 pm |

The Truth

Most atheists don't have any evidence for their atheism, and they can't logically prove there is no God. They can only attack the Bible and attack Christians' ideas of God. But, if you listen to them, you can soon find that their logic has many holes in it. Sometimes they will merely insist their beliefs are based on objective evidence and are logically consistent. But saying so and proving so are 2 different things.

October 31, 2013 at 10:36 pm |

bostontola

Truth,
Now I can only suspect you are trolling. I present multiple classes of evidence that religions are false, and atheism is true. There is no proof. Your circular reasoning is not productive and is evidence that you are not confident in your beliefs.

October 31, 2013 at 10:40 pm |

HotAirAce

One last try, please demonstrate your expertise by itemizing the major holes with supporting facts.

October 31, 2013 at 10:41 pm |

Observer

The Truth

"Most atheists don't have any evidence for their atheism".

I have twice discussed my reasons for being a nonbeliever and you have more or less agreed with my "evidence". Aren't you paying attention?

October 31, 2013 at 10:42 pm |

bostontola

Evidence repeated for The Truth:

The bible factual errors in the creation myth, the period morals in bible (slavery, punish descendants for parents crime, etc) are strong evidence for the fallacy of Christianity. Every other religion has similar flaws in their scripture.

There have been hundreds of religions and thousands of gods worshiped in history. The dogma associated with all but 1 sect must be wrong. That is overwhelming evidence, don't you think? No proof, but a lot of evidence. As science compiles more knowledge, the more the universe is explained with no need for a supernatural element. Again, not proof, but a lot of evidence.

October 31, 2013 at 10:46 pm |

The Truth

Atheist beliefs are not based on objective evidence and are not logically consistent.

Truth,
Are you trolling or just disoriented? You already made that assertion and I said if you show 1 example of a logical inconsistency with objective evidence I would concede. Please simply provide 1 inconsistency.

October 31, 2013 at 10:50 pm |

Observer

Yep. Looks like faith/hharri/etc. is back.

No facts. No interest in anything but trolling.

Waste of time. "The Truth" apparently isn't interested in it.

October 31, 2013 at 10:51 pm |

The Truth

HotAirAce

You need to tell me something about your belief for me to point out the holes. I said atheists don't have any evidence for their atheism, and they can't logically prove there is no God. They can only attack the Bible and attack Christians' ideas of God.

Give me evidence for you atheism without attacking the Bible or Christianity.

October 31, 2013 at 10:52 pm |

HotAirAce

Please provide one atheist belief and explain why it is not logical or consistent.

October 31, 2013 at 10:52 pm |

bostontola

Truth,
My belief: there is no god.
Now show me how that is inconsistent with any objective evidence.

October 31, 2013 at 10:55 pm |

The Truth

HotAirAce says: "There is no God."

I say you cannot logically state that there is no God because you cannot know all things so as to determine that there is no God.

October 31, 2013 at 10:56 pm |

Observer

The Truth

"Give me evidence for you atheism without attacking the Bible or Christianity."

Classic. Explain opposition to the existence of God without using the ONLY book that supposedly reports his story and divine words.

And you talk about atheists lacking LOGIC. Unreal. What a joke!

October 31, 2013 at 10:57 pm |

The Truth

We both lack logic. There is an atheist myth that atheism is supported by science, logic and reason. But in reality it is not. It is just based on faith.

October 31, 2013 at 11:01 pm |

bostontola

Truth,
You are just circling around making unsubstantiated assertions and refusing to respond to well defined, simple challenges to your position. I hope you're all right.

October 31, 2013 at 11:05 pm |

HotAirAce

Where did I say say there is no god?

October 31, 2013 at 11:06 pm |

Doris

One reason I find atheists to be more logical is that, from those that I have communicated with, they seem to not ignore science as much as the theists I have communicated with. That's one thing that religion, in general, does to people.

"[If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope." –Thomas Jefferson

October 31, 2013 at 11:08 pm |

The Truth

How modest that you claim your responses are well defined and simple challenges.

October 31, 2013 at 11:08 pm |

The Truth

-HotAirAce "Where did I say say there is no god?"-

You aren't saying anything, but keep asking me to show the holes in atheism. It is like you are too scared. So I pretended like you said that so I could counter your belief... we are talking about atheism and how illogical it is. You seem to have a problem with this, but have no logic or evidence to prove atheism.

October 31, 2013 at 11:10 pm |

The Truth

Cpt. Obvious

No logical fallacies, please. That does not prove atheism in any way. It just shows atheists are illogical.

October 31, 2013 at 11:12 pm |

Observer

The Truth

"There is an atheist myth that atheism is supported by science, logic and reason. But in reality it is not. It is just based on faith."

Wrong. It is LOGIC and REASONING that sees that the ONLY book that supposedly contains God's history and words is lacking in logic and reasoning. Even you admit that. That shows that atheism IS supported by logic and reason.

You've thorougly lost that argument, so what is next?

October 31, 2013 at 11:12 pm |

Cpt. Obvious

As I have already demonstrated, atheism is not a belief, so your entire premise is flawed. And you have no other argument.

What are the flaws you find with the "logic" of atheism? Why are you so afraid to expose the crumbling foundations of the atheist position?

October 31, 2013 at 11:14 pm |

The Truth

Observer

An atheist declares his belief is supported by logic and reason. But he doesn't demonstrate this. And once again he simply restorts to attacking Christianity.

And then he declares himself the winner of the argument.

Atheism is not supported by logic and reason. Nobody has even attempted to demonstrate how. Because they can't?

October 31, 2013 at 11:16 pm |

The Truth

Cpt Obvious

You only have convinced yourself that atheism is not a belief.

Tell me why believing there is no God is logical. It is not. It is a belief you hold.

October 31, 2013 at 11:19 pm |

Cpt. Obvious

You are welcome to demonstrate how my arguments were fallacious or we can have further discussion on the matter, but I do not except your declaration, nor do I believe that you have the slightest clue how logic works.

You have no argument, you merely claim that you do. Logic is against you.

October 31, 2013 at 11:21 pm |

Doris

You keep calling atheism a belief, but really it's a lack of belief. And I would say it involves logic and reason to examine the beliefs of others. Why would there be something to demonstrate to say that a person examines different things for validity?

October 31, 2013 at 11:22 pm |

The Truth

You listed a bunch of common logical fallacies that atheists use, Cpt Obvious.

Try again.

October 31, 2013 at 11:24 pm |

Cpt. Obvious

No. I have provided you with several extremely logical reasons why atheism is logical and how it is not a belief as you understand the term, but you are too stupid to understand or you are playing games.

Nope. I did not use logical fallacies, and you have now claimed it twice while providing no reasoning or evidence for your claims. Double fail.

October 31, 2013 at 11:29 pm |

The Truth

Captain Obvious your reasons are not logical. Try showing them to someone who has a strong grasp of logic (ie none of the atheists on this board).

**There is exactly zero evidence for unicorns; thus, logically, it is more sensible to disbelieve that the exist than to believe that the do exist. The person who doubts and disbelieves in unicorns holds the more logical position because the unbeliever is not claiming something exists, but in fact, the nonbeliever is making no claim at all.

There is evidence for God! Look at this blog! We aren't on a blog dedicated to unicorns. We are one dedicated to belief in the supernatural!

**Same for god. There is zero evidence for god; thus, logically, it is more sensible to disbelieve that god exists than to believe that he does. The person who doubts and disbelieves in gods holds the more logical position because the unbeliever is not claiming something exists, but in fact, the nonbeliever is making no claim at all.

I can no more prove to you that God is real than you can prove that the universe is all that exists. Your demand of proof precludes acknowledgement of many types of evidence because your presuppositions don't allow it.

**If someone claims to have an invisible space ship that can't be detected, are you more logical to believe or disbelieve?

Since you are asking completely hypothetically, I will not believe. Because it is completely and 100% hypothetical. Your imaginary person doesn't really exist. It is just a bad analogy that fails to prove there is no God.

October 31, 2013 at 11:34 pm |

Cpt. Obvious

There are millions of people blogging right now about vampires on vampire blogs. This blog is not evidence of god.

As to your second point, I have no interest in proving that any gods exist. I simply don't care about such proof. I am in a state of disbelief until some god believer out there shows me compelling evidence that his god exists. I will believe in a god or an alien or a unicorn when someone shows me that one exists, but I'll not go around trying to prove that your imaginary ideas really don't exist. You prove that it's more than your imagination, and we'll talk. Until then, I find it is more logical to withhold belief.

Prove your claim or understand that it is more logical that others disbelieve it.

October 31, 2013 at 11:41 pm |

HotAirAce

I have not made any claims in this discussion about the existence of any god nor have I challenged any holy books or believer's beliefs. I have challenged *your* claims that *you* can point out holes in atheist beliefs and logic. My beliefs are not relevant for you to prove your assertions. You merely need to state the most common atheist beliefs, or your favorite ones, and show how they are illogical. You seem to want to make this a personal, one-on-one, confrontation rather than proceeding in a calm, professional manner.

So, once again, please provide a list of atheist beliefs you have observed and facts why they are illogical. And don't forget to provide the evidence for any guide.

October 31, 2013 at 11:43 pm |

Cpt. Obvious

Correction/clarification:

I have no interest in proving that your god does not exist until you prove that he does. I also feel no compulsion to prove that unicorns don't exist.

October 31, 2013 at 11:44 pm |

The Truth

I'm just looking for someone to prove atheism is logical. It really doesn't seem to be. I notice 3 or 4 illogical acting people insist it is... but that is horrible evidence.

October 31, 2013 at 11:49 pm |

HotAirAce

The Truth, unless you can provide actual (objective, factual, independent, verifiable, etc.) evidence for your god or against an invisible spaceship or unicorns, your unfounded assertion that your god exists is no less hypothetical than an unfounded assertion that invisible spaceships and unicorns exist. So again, we're back to you backing up your assertions.

October 31, 2013 at 11:54 pm |

Doris

You may call atheism a belief system, but atheists are not the ones with some common set of tenets; atheists; they don't worship a common enti-ty born out of rehashed religions. I would say it involves logic and reason to examine the beliefs of others. Why would there be something to demonstrate to say that a person examines different things for validity?

October 31, 2013 at 11:56 pm |

The Truth

When an atheist attempts to provide logic or rational basis for belief in atheism, I will point out the flaws and mistakes.

But if an atheist just wants to talk about imaginary people, invisible space ships and unicorns... I'm going just wait him out.

October 31, 2013 at 11:57 pm |

Doris

One reason I find atheists to be more logical is that, from those that I have communicated with, they seem to not ignore science as much as the theists I have communicated with. That's one thing that religion, in general, does to people.

"[If] the nature of... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope." –Thomas Jefferson

And I don't believe you've demonstrated a very good understanding of atheism at all.

October 31, 2013 at 11:58 pm |

Doris

Truth: "When an atheist attempts to provide logic or rational basis for belief in atheism, I will point out the flaws and mistakes."

That actually does not address the point I just made, so unless you are still working on it . . . . .

It doesn't because you logically cannot disprove a negative. Can you disprove Santa Clause?

November 1, 2013 at 5:45 am |

HotAirAce

Anyone know when The Truth gets out of kindergarten? He's still got some explaining to do. Or has he just run away as is usual for believers that spout off and can't even begin to support their claims? I suspect we won't hear from this self proclaimed atheist expert anytime soon.

November 1, 2013 at 2:36 pm |

yoozyerbrain

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Religionists are the ones making the claims, now make the proof.

Atheists and anti-theists know you can't "prove" the non-existence of Thor and Mithra too, let alone whatever ridiculous supersti tion The Truth subscribes to. Example- There's a 400 foot pink pine tree in a pot next to my feet, I see it clearly, now prove it doesn't exist Truth.

There's knowing and then there's Knowing. We Know evolution happens, you know god exists. See the difference? See the Truth? Funny that the supersti tionistas use capital T Truth when what they mean is capital L Lie. But face them with a REAL capital T truth, ie god is not in the clouds cuz clouds are water vapor etc, and they'll say only they possess the Truth! What a hopper full of crap!

November 1, 2013 at 2:52 pm |

Tales from the Crypt

There was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and then nothing magically exploded for no reason creating everything and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason what so ever into self-replicating bits which then turned into dinosaurs.

Has it ever occur to you that nothing was actually something but we just don't know about it yet? We know the are still a lot of things, which could be called nothings, that when they are "discovered" will be called something. We haven't discover everything, much less have the capacity to "understand" everything when we do.

I don't think atheists have a special logic. I don't and I am an atheist. So if you agree exactly with me, what are you?

October 31, 2013 at 10:17 pm |

Oxymorons-R-us

"Answers in Genesis"

GOOD EXAMPLE!!

October 31, 2013 at 8:01 pm |

Rehpot

Believing in a soul, or a god, or an afterlife is really kind of a pathetic yearning for "something more". Nature to me looks much harsher than that. And beyond how special Humans are, we really are not that special as to be the center of the Universe.

October 31, 2013 at 8:00 pm |

Cpt. Obvious

I agree that it appears that way, but most discoveries of the nature of reality are counterintuitive. Considering the strangeness of QM, perhaps each person is the precise center of his own universe that slightly overlaps with all the universes of everyone else. I doubt that is the case, but there's no reason it couldn't be one possibility.

October 31, 2013 at 8:05 pm |

Paul

So it's speculation then, not science.

October 31, 2013 at 9:28 pm |

Cpt. Obvious

Of course it's not science. Who would be so stupid as to say that? It is a possibility that cannot be discounted, and it's not the are ideas more illogical. How preposterous would it seem to a caveman that the stars are flaming b@lls of gas trillions of times the size of anything he could imagine? Yet it was true.

October 31, 2013 at 11:33 pm |

rocketscientist

Well, speaking as a Catholic aerospace engineer, this is just embarrasing. Talk about taking the highroad! Whoever put up these boards really lowered themselves.

Again, why do the two sides, religious and non-religious, need to be at war? Just due to moral issues like abortion, gay marriage, and a couple of others? Most of us are good people. Why do some people work so hard to set one side against the other?

Again, I'm so glad my folks didn't raise me to judge or hate another due to them having a different faith or worldview than myself. It's so dissapointing seeing other people, religious or not, resort to mean-spirited, base emotions and bigoted behaviour.

I wish it would just end, but I expect it never ever will.

October 31, 2013 at 7:29 pm |

Oxymorons-R-us

It's just hard to respect stupid.

Mind-reading sky faeries that you get to picnic with AFTER you die don't fit in the 21st century.

Here's the illustrated version of Genesis. http://www.theguardian.com/books/gallery/2009/oct/23/robert-crumb-art

The only thing I find questionable of this account is why, since it is bigger than everything else, can't we see god's big head and his big hands. Also, with today's powerful telescopes shouldn't be be able to see what god is standing on?

October 31, 2013 at 8:06 pm |

MattinDC

BRAVO!
Why can't we all just GET ALONG!?
GO REDSKINS beat chargers!

November 1, 2013 at 12:38 pm |

Science Works

How the Universe's Violent Youth Seeded Cosmos With Iron

Oct. 30, 2013 — By detecting an even distribution of iron throughout a massive galaxy cluster, astrophysicists can tell the 10-billion-year-old story of how exploding stars and black holes sowed the early cosmos with heavy elements.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/10/131030152916.htm

October 31, 2013 at 2:12 pm |

Kent Hovind

But like how could they know for sure if they weren't there 10 billion years ago? They must be some psychic scientists!!!

Pibbybacking on this theme receently NASA said they have a recording of the actual big bang apparently....the sound is finally reaching us........RUN for your LIFE...RUN TO THE HILLS (Iron Maiden, Iron Maiden)

October 31, 2013 at 3:30 pm |

Science Works

Kent Hovind

Must not of read the article, third paragraph explains how.

October 31, 2013 at 4:08 pm |

Science Works

Kent Hovind

Heavy element (Iron) is in our blood Kent the SEED from billions of years ago.

November 1, 2013 at 11:44 am |

Anne Smith

This is HILARIOUS!!!! Answers in Genesis? HAHAHAHA!!! Genesis was (poorly) written by multiple people. It is the most cartoonish of bible stories. For anyone in 2013 to believe any of that nonsense is alarming actually. There is no god people. Wakey wakey. It's all made up stories. You're not going anywhere when you die. Sorry, you are wrong. That is the truth. Deal with it.

October 31, 2013 at 12:51 pm |

MattinDC

Poor, poor, little Annie Smith...with a STANDARD name like that it's NO WONDER why you lack faith and consciousness a highrt power to ENLIGHTEN your life.
Good luck honey!

October 31, 2013 at 1:10 pm |

Observer

MattinDC,

Did you think of that brilliant answer all by yourself?

October 31, 2013 at 1:27 pm |

MattinDC

Yessiiree Mr. or Mrs. Observer. Pretty clever eh?
GO REDSKINS!

October 31, 2013 at 1:28 pm |

Observer

MattinDC

"Yessiiree Mr. or Mrs. Observer. Pretty clever eh?"

Apparently it was for you.

October 31, 2013 at 1:30 pm |

MattinDC

it was admittedly a wee bit mean spirited...very UN-christian of me so I'm sorry..
She was mean too though...

October 31, 2013 at 1:33 pm |

Observer

MattinDC,

Kudos for your apology. Sadly, we see far too few of them from ANY side on here.

October 31, 2013 at 1:40 pm |

MattinDC

I KNOW!...can't we all just GET ALONG...!?!!??
Be careful tonight everyone!

Being nu-Christian is the paradox of being a Christian. No need to apologize, as you did below, its like built in to the religion. You can commit adultery, be forgiven, do it again, be forgiven and then still sit in heaven and watch all those unforgivens writhe in hell for all of eternity for doing just as you did. That's why Hitler was a Christian-he wanted to go to heaven and still do whatever he wanted to do.

You should check out "The Book of Genesis: Illustrated by R.Crumb." Its graphic detail is quite enlightening, especially when the "knowing" parts are read and seen in full blown comic detail.

October 31, 2013 at 4:53 pm |

Fun with quotes

All of it absolutely true

November 1, 2013 at 6:43 am |

pauleky

"Taunt?" Heh...good luck with that.

October 31, 2013 at 12:47 pm |

Gman

My father and brother claim to be athiests and say "when you die that's it!". I say to them "how do you know? Untill you die yourself, you'll never know what lies beyond". Until I'm convinced otherwise I have to belive that there may be a higher power beyond this life, having said that, for anyone to think that this earth was created less than 10,000 years ago needs to rethink that whole concept. Science has proven beyond doubt that earth is more like 4.5 billion years old

October 31, 2013 at 9:44 am |

MattinDC

RIGHT ON GMAN!
REPENT sinners!
Go Redskins! Bead chargers!

October 31, 2013 at 9:56 am |

Tom Conlon

Curse the Redskins and their insulting name to Native Americans, Hurray for Jesus and Chargers!

October 31, 2013 at 11:31 am |

MattinDC

hahaha. question TC:

How can REDSKINS be a RACIST term when NATIVE AMERICAN HIGH SCHOOLS on RESERVATIONS use the SAME name for their OWN team.???.....this is a NON argument. Americans have to learn when under 10% of a population thinks something is wrong...it really ISN'T = MAJORITY RULES!!!

October 31, 2013 at 1:25 pm |

end of Idiocy

Gman, death is a very scary thing to some people. That's the carrot of religion. The promise of eternal life. Something to sooth your troubled mind while you are alive. If that helps you get through the day without going nuts, then great for you.

Thank you for being a religious person that still uses your mind and thinks for yourself. It's refreshing to see that.

October 31, 2013 at 11:48 am |

MattinDC

Nope....watch the Long Island Medium or John Edward......I used to be an Atheist until they ENLIGHTENED me!
Praise JESUS! & pray for the Atheists!

Aren't you being a little arrogant by saying the your relatives claim to be atheists. Obviously they have their definition of what that means and they believe they fit it. OTH Christians claiming to be Christians are really claiming nothing since all Christians have a different definition of what that means. For instance you can be a burning in hell Christian, or if you believe in a more loving god, just a separation from god sort of Christian. If Moslem you could be one who practices, literally, stoning until dead, or take a more modern view and give up even the lash; that is, if you want to live in the USA. Atheist simply don't believe in a god,- any god. That's not very confusing.

October 31, 2013 at 9:02 pm |

Gman

How is that arrogant? They told me they are athiests, they don't believe there is a God, from their own lips. I don't argue with them, if that's what they believe that's fine. I simply said "how do you know? Untill you die yourself, you'll never know what lies beyond", something for them to think about, I'm not trying to change their mind just, perhaps, look at things with more of an open mind. This conversation occurred after my brother was murdered in cold blood.
I'll be clear on this, if you cannot prove that God exists then you also cannot disprove God exists. I do not go to church nor am I affiliated with any religion organized or not, however, because the existence of a higher power cannot be proved or disproved I HAVE to believe there is something beyond this life.

November 4, 2013 at 4:27 pm |

GOOD NEWS

"They refuse to look at the real world.
They refuse to look at the evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said.

Mr. Silverman, here is what you are looking for!

http://www.holy-19-harvest.com
UNIVERSAL MAGNIFICENT MIRACLES

October 31, 2013 at 4:37 am |

sam stone.

perhaps he was speaking of convicing evidence, "good news", not the tripe you post

I'm not a religious man. If anything deserved to be worshipped, it would be our sun. Our sun wouldn't care though, so it would be pointless.

October 31, 2013 at 1:46 am |

Apollo

You human's have changed man.

October 31, 2013 at 5:38 pm |

Futureman1

The idea of a force in the sky who created all matter and life would be hysterical if not for the fact that the majority of humans including our own President, congress, and Supreme court seem to believe it. In that context, its pathetic!

October 30, 2013 at 10:23 pm |

lol??

You still believin' in the USA?? It's morphed into FUSA (FORMER). The state gubmints had their representation stolen with the passage of the 17th. It was claimed to be progress but now you have blue (CRIPS) and red (BLOODS) states. It made the Masters very poor.

October 31, 2013 at 1:59 am |

anon

Oh god, it turned into a "who's the biggest dick" war about religion.

October 30, 2013 at 10:08 pm |

Barcs

Lets see. Experiments have shown that parts of RNA can form from amino acids, the basic building blocks of life. Experiments have also shown that amino acids can be created from comet impacts with certain conditions present. 1 + 1 = 2. No need for magic. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that god is not necessary for anything in the universe.

Originally people believed lightning was a result of the gods being angry. Once the real explanation was discovered, people stopped believing that. The problem is that it's been a battle for years, every time science proves an aspect of theism or creationism wrong, they move the goal posts to something else unknown. He used to be necessary for everything on earth, but now with evolution we know how life can emerge and diversify without him. Virtually everything in the universe that has been studied has shown to function by itself without the need of any external being. It's gotten so bad that creationists can only resort to the "well what about the origin of life?" or "well what about the origin of matter?". When science eventually answers these questions, what will the theists appeal to next? The more we learn, the less necessary a god becomes. This is why theists fight against science. They just assume it was created by the devil to trick everybody.

Appealing to the unknown doesn't equate to god existing. It just means we don't know the answer yet, just as folks didn't know the answer for lightning or weather or even days / nights and seasons. Now we know, and knowing is half the battle. The other half is to utilize scrutiny, logic, and critical thinking and apply it to everything in life, including your belief system. Most folks can't seem to think outside the box of creationism to even consider that they might be wrong. That's the problem.

October 30, 2013 at 3:54 pm |

Lawrence of Arabia

Barcs,
Experiments have taken a little of this, and combined it with a little of that, and made something else... They baked a cake, OK?

If I splat a mosquito on my arm, therein lies all of the chemical necessary for life, but dat bug ain't a coming back. If you believe in abiogenesis, then you admit that it's possible that it could fly away...

October 30, 2013 at 3:56 pm |

Science Assistant

That just reminded me, Larry:

The 46-million-year-old meal: Scientists discover mosquito fossil so well-preserved that it still has blood in its stomach.
... the mosquito proves certain complex organic molecules such as haem can be preserved.

What do you mean experiments have taken care of this? Please post the experiment that completely rules out abiogenesis. And don't talk about spontaneous generation, that is a ridiculously old hypothesis that has been disproven and modern abiogenesis hypothesis does not refer to that. I'm talking about going from amino acids to RNA to DNA, parts of which HAVE BEEN DUPLICATED. It's never as simple as life from non life or your silly mosquito example.

October 30, 2013 at 4:06 pm |

Lawrence of Arabia

Continuous experimentation throughout the last several hundred years, even with the explosion of technology that we have today has produced mountainous evidence that life only comes from non-life. Evidence in the form of a complete inability to produce life under any and all conditions thrown at the problem. Try as you may, it is impossible to make parallel lines meet, but that is precisely what abiogenesis attempts to do.

How long does evidence need to pile up before it becomes a scientific law?

October 30, 2013 at 4:20 pm |

Lawrence of Arabia

Excuse me "Life only comes from LIFE."

October 30, 2013 at 4:21 pm |

Barcs

You don't understand science experiments then. Just because they haven't figured everything out yet, doesn't mean it's been ruled out. Go back 100 years and we hadn't even figured out atoms existed yet. Does that mean their existence was ruled out, simply because it took a while to find and study them? Science is a method of fact gathering. It doesn't look to prove things wrong, it looks to figure out how things work. It takes time. In another hundred years we'll probably know way more about the subject, so for now neither you nor I knows the answer for sure. Don't be fooled by the ego.

October 30, 2013 at 4:31 pm |

MattinDC

Watch the Long Island Medium lady or that John Edward guy...now... YOU TELL ME wether or not our sprit/soul lives on...
I say an astounding YES friend. Evidence is right there in front of us....no denying...they have CHANGED peoples lives with there visions of peoples relatives. NO WAY that's fake. And I'm the biggest doubter there is.

October 30, 2013 at 4:39 pm |

Barcs

Mattin, that has absolutely nothing to do with abiogenesis or atheism. Many atheists believe in a soul or afterlife. That doesn't prove god, even if it's real, which cannot be verified. Saying that "NO WAY that's fake" is your opinion, it's not fact and either way doesn't prove / disprove god.

October 30, 2013 at 4:47 pm |

HotAirAce

Continuous searching for actual evidence for any god for thousands of years has only shown that there is no evidence.

How long will the search continue before silly childish beliefs are abandoned?

October 31, 2013 at 1:59 am |

sam stone.

hot air: as long as there are gullible people, and those who take advantage of them, it will never end

October 31, 2013 at 6:08 am |

Bio2HonorsKid

OK, to the person that said that all life comes from life. Life had to start some where, and it started when archae bacteria were first formed via heat and C H O N and P In the bubbly goo that was our earth millions of years ago. When the oceans formed the bubbly goo bacteria found a new place to live, the ocean, and the became the more temperate eubacteria. Eventually the eubacteria evolved and grew to be protists, and water bound eukaryotes. The eukaryotes joined with other bacteria (mitochondria and chloroplasts) to make a self providing cell able to push things through its membrane faster than before allowing it to grow bigger. These single celled organisms became the building blocks of plants, fungi, and animals. The animals formed into tiny multicelled organisms and grew to be fish. Plant cells developed a cell wall and became algae and other sea bound organisms which migrated through poop to land. Fungi used chitin to form their porus bodies and they became the recyclers of the food chain. From there the animals developed legs through evolution and things started to branch off even more. Evolution took over and here we are. Also, Darwin never said that we came from monkeys or apes, but that we share a common ancestor. Pigs are more closely related to us than monkeys. God could or could not exist, no one knows for sure and it would be foolish to say so. It's a Schrödinger's cat situation in which if you find out you can never go back, but you can't find out without tampering with the experiment. Seriously, you won't know till you die. The bible also provides good life lessons and also a way to cope with death, and also what's out there. I know that there are some questionable parts of the bible and it can be interpreted in many different ways, and no one is absolutely right about everything in it. I think that following what Jesus taught is a good thing to do because, even from an out of religion aspect he was a good person. Now would you pansy's just stop arguing and get on with your 100 yr lives?

October 30, 2013 at 6:55 pm |

A Frayed Knot

Bio2,
" I think that following what Jesus taught is a good thing to do because, even from an out of religion aspect he was a good person."

Some of his ideas were ok - nothing new really, though - Buddha taught many/most of the nice things 500+ years earlier.

His "Believe In Me or Perish" schtick rates a zero, though. Plus, he believed an awful lot of nonsense from the Israelite Old Testament.

October 30, 2013 at 7:03 pm |

Barcs

Good post, I have very similar thoughts on the matter, although I just have to say that chimpanzees and bonobos share a more recent common ancestor with humans than pigs do.

You must destroy all the nations the LORD your God hands over to you. Show them no mercy and do not worship their gods. If you do, they will trap you. Perhaps you will think to yourselves, 'How can we ever conquer these nations that are so much more powerful than we are?' But don't be afraid of them! Just remember what the LORD your God did to Pharaoh and to all the land of Egypt. Remember the great terrors the LORD your God sent against them. You saw it all with your own eyes! And remember the miraculous signs and wonders, and the amazing power he used when he brought you out of Egypt. The LORD your God will use this same power against the people you fear. And then the LORD your God will send hornets to drive out the few survivors still hiding from you! "No, do not be afraid of those nations, for the LORD your God is among you, and he is a great and awesome God. The LORD your God will drive those nations out ahead of you little by little. You will not clear them away all at once, for if you did, the wild animals would multiply too quickly for you. But the LORD your God will hand them over to you. He will throw them into complete confusion until they are destroyed. He will put their kings in your power, and you will erase their names from the face of the earth. No one will be able to stand against you, and you will destroy them all. (Deuteronomy 7:16-24 NLT)

November 1, 2013 at 5:56 am |

Don

So, who made the world so perfectly to work on its own? God allows us to work on our own.

October 31, 2013 at 2:15 pm |

Bio2HonorsKid

I do agree with what Buddha taught and I also like the ideals being taoism. I am a Lutheran though, and I think that most churches that maintain what they are here to do (Yeah, spread the word is part of it but more the community outreach, help with the grieving process, and help in general.) I know there are some nutjob churches out there (WBC being a prime example) that call themselves christian, but the irony is that what they are doing is extremely unchristian like. Like in the Hindu religion, I believe that we should not try to convert people into religion. Believe what you want to believe as long as it makes you happy, and as long as it isn't destructive to others. Yeah, Buddha probably said it first but at that time China was separated via the mountains, so Jesus was probably speaking about new ideals to people that hadn't heard it before, and since there was very little communication between areas of the world at that time, he helped spread the word even further.
The old testament book of law (Leviticus) was written as Jewish Law. At that time that was what they thought was right, so they believed in it. Leviticus is now more of a cultural history of what they beleived at that time. The reason (for anyone wondering) that they didn't eat pork was 1: Because they wallowed in their excreetment and filth and at that time there were very little safety precautions, so eating it could kill you 2:Trichinosis, read up on it, it can kill you.
Now our pork is cleaned much better and is taken more care of, and is safe to eat.
Sorry, not a common ancestor, I meant DNA wise they are closer to us. We can implant parts of a pig heart in us and it will work.
I would think that a good reason for believing in him or perishing would be like your parents saying " eat your brocolli or you won't fully develop and be weak the rest of your life" because at that time there were loads of wrong doings and other general bad shenanigans so on average I would say that going his way would be easier than going the other way.

October 31, 2013 at 8:45 pm |

Check

Bio2HonorsKid,

What is the first line in the book of Leviticus?... and several of the other OT books?

It says the "Lord" spoke to Moses and TOLD him these things!

– You cure leprosy by having a dove killed, dipping a live one in its blood and having it fly around. Also, you have to anoint the toes of the suffer with the blood.–Leviticus 14

– You discover unfaithful wives when their bellies swell and their thighs rot after they are made to drink some magical water. – Numbers 5

– You may buy, own, sell, and will slaves to your descendants (only foreigners for slaves, though, no Israelis) –Leviticus 25

- “If two men are fighting, and the wife of one man tries to rescue her husband by grabbing the other man’s private parts, you must cut off her hand. Don’t have any mercy." Deuteronomy 25

There are several other similar instances of absolute rubbish that this "God" allegedly "spoke", along with a bunch of other rules and laws that are obviously only from the minds of primitive men. How anyone can believe that this stuff came from an omniscient divine being is ludicrous.

November 1, 2013 at 11:58 am |

Salero21

There is no doubt about it, atheism is stupidity in Full bloom in any and all seasons!!

October 30, 2013 at 2:28 pm |

Barcs

atheism is the logical default until objective evidence of any god is brought forward. Yeah it's really stupid to reject your religion due to lack of evidence. Smart people blindly believe unverified things as absolute truth. I guess if you don't believe in pink unicorns it makes you stupid!!

October 30, 2013 at 3:09 pm |

lotus

Salero21: What is stupid about atheism?
Christianity is a popular belief but that doesn't mean that what's popular is right. Slavery was very popular and dead wrong it was a crime against humanity. If you would post a valid argument against atheism then a real discussion can begin but to just dismiss a realistic viewpoint because it's different than your own is utterly ignorant and infantile.

October 30, 2013 at 3:26 pm |

Lawrence of Arabia

Life doesn't come from non-life. That pretty much destroys atheism right there.

October 30, 2013 at 3:29 pm |

ET Iphone home

And you can prove that? Or are you just guessing based on what science hasn't answered yet?

October 30, 2013 at 3:39 pm |

Lawrence of Arabia

Then show me where life actually has come from non-life...
The idea of Abiogenesis has been solidly disproven since the 19th century. Scientists experiment with the idea even today, but that falls clearly into the category of wishful thinking.

October 30, 2013 at 3:50 pm |

Barcs

Lawrence, you are wrong. Abiogenesis does indeed have some evidence behind it. It's not 100% conclusive yet, but it's a start. Experiments have shown that amino acids can form parts of RNA, and that comet impacts can form amino acids in the right conditions. That's the first step. You are appealing to scientific ignorance and nothing more. Maybe if science actually figures out that life cannot come from non life, you'll have a point, but right now we don't know the answer, so to make an assumption like that is highly illogical sir. There is also a problem with the way that "life" is defined. Where does it start and end? Is a virus considered life? What about replicating RNA? Abiogenesis is the study about how life can go from amino acids (the basic building blocks) to functional RNA molecules, to eventual DNA molecules. Claiming that it has been disproven is a flat out lie. It may not be PROVEN yet, but that's not the same as being disproven. In the same way naturalistic universe has yet to be proven/disproven, as does creation/god. That doesn't make it right or wrong. It just means we don't know yet. To assume otherwise goes against logic.

October 30, 2013 at 4:01 pm |

Lawrence of Arabia

Barcs,
But to look at a lab experiment where huge assumptions are made as to the original conditions of this planet "before life," and then induce certain chemicals into a test tube that were assumed to be available at the time, and add electricity or radiation to produce amino acids from these building blocks looks more like guesswork than science.

There are just too many HUGE assumptions being made as to the original conditions on this earth, just look to the many different abiogenesis theories and experiments to get an idea there. Furthermore, the definition of "life" is quite settled. I'll spare you the definition quote here, but the dictionary spells out that one, and baking a cake is not creating life, but that's all they are doing when they produce amino acids from other compounds.

October 30, 2013 at 4:10 pm |

Barcs

Nothing you said rules out abiogenesis. I don't think you understand the nature of the experiments. They are trying to figure out exactly what conditions are necessary for the change to happen. If it can happen, then it can happen, it doesn't matter if scientists adjusted the conditions to make it work. The fact still shows that it CAN happen under those conditions, which are very likely the conditions on primordial earth. What you think they just throw these guesses out there willy nilly and see what happens? Of course not. There are countless variable involved in setting up these experiments to adjust for the proper conditions. The comet experiment proves that comet impacts CAN create amino acids. Again, the experiments don't prove that it is exactly what happened, they prove that it CAN happen. So your assertion that experiments have ruled out abiogenesis is dead wrong.

October 30, 2013 at 4:26 pm |

Sue

Lawrence, your first statement is unproven although you tried to pass it of as fact (it isn't), and your own argument for the existence of your god seems to be a common argument from ignorance. That argument should be rejected.

However, what we can be absolutely certain of is that the specific god presented in the Christian bible does not exist.That point is obvious as soon as one critically and reasonably considers the set of contradictory characteristics ascribed to that god.

October 30, 2013 at 4:20 pm |

Lawrence of Arabia

Abiogenesis is a theory that is entirely unproven. It is the atheists: "abiogenesis of the gaps." The belief goes – God isn't real, therefore abiogenesis must have done it.

Furthermore, there is no way that you can prove the second part of your post. You speak of it as if it were fact, but you can offer no proof.

October 30, 2013 at 4:28 pm |

Barcs

Lawrence, your ignorance of science is shining through. Abiogensis is a HYPOTHESIS, not a theory. That means it is under investigation and experimentation and no conclusion has yet been reached. It hasn't been verified or ruled out yet. Abiogenesis is a scientific principle, not an atheistic one. It goes "I don't know how life emerged 4 billion years ago. Let's try to find out". It doesn't make any assumptions about god or anything else first. And yeah the Christian god makes no sense, regardless, although that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. It's more about not understanding how the scientific method works.

October 30, 2013 at 4:38 pm |

Barcs

Ignorance of science is not evidence for god. God doesn't win by default just because we haven't explained every detail about the original of space time and matter or even just life. God only wins if objective evidence is found to suggest he is real. Until then you are living your life based on a guess and nothing more.

October 30, 2013 at 4:41 pm |

MattinDC

No, no, no....you got it BACKWARDS! God created the science.....

October 30, 2013 at 4:51 pm |

Observer

MattinDC

"No, no, no....you got it BACKWARDS! God created the science....."

Yep. Guess that's why all the laws of science are optional if you believe the Bible.

Life is the result of chemistry. No magic required. The fact that life exists in nature shows life was of natural origin.
If your god is based upon what we don't yet know, where will your god go when we do know the answers?
The "god of the gaps" argument is based on ever thinning ice. Modern theologians don't even go there.
Modern theologians have faith because they want to have faith and accept there is no evidence in nature of god(s).
They clearly understand a hypothesis which conflicts with evidence in nature is incorrect. Modern theologians understand a doctrine based upon that which known to be incorrect is based upon falsehood.
Creationism is a lie, but it's a well funded lie supported by special interest groups who stand to lose a lot of money and power if the ignorant masses learn to think critically according to what modern theologians desire.
That is why modern theologians and atheists alike attack "god of the gaps" and other creationist arguments.

October 30, 2013 at 8:18 pm |

fred

Sean
"Life is the result of chemistry."
=>You have no evidence for that statement. You could say that certain observed organic functions are the result of certain types of molecular reactions. The problem with using science as a foundation for a philosophical view of the origin of life is that you fall into the same pit as believers do.

"The fact that life exists in nature shows life was of natural origin."
=>Right, just like the fact I am a Christian shows that God made Adam out of the dirt of the earth.

"If your god is based upon what we don't yet know, where will your god go when we do know the answers?"
=>whow you have more faith than I do. Man will know the unknowable is what you just said.

As long as there is science there will be questions to investigate. What is the unknowable?
We have a good idea of what we know and don't know, but as we discover new things we discover new questions and this becomes the new unknown. Today's unknown was yesterday's unknowable- the question we didn't know to ask yet. Science is a process of discovery and understand not an event of absolute knowledge.
Based upon what we know today we would appear as gods to the ancients. We can make fire appear with the flick of a thumb, light the darkness, fly on silver wings, and talk to other people at a distance...
Yes, we'll know the unknowable in time fred, assuming we don't destroy our biosphere.

October 30, 2013 at 9:05 pm |

fred

Sean

"We have a good idea of what we know and don't know"
=>what? You cannot even imagine what you do not know how could you have a good idea about it!

"Science is a process of discovery and understand"
=>ok now you are back on track

"not an event of absolute knowledge."
=>so absolute zero does not exist?

"Based upon what we know today we would appear as gods to the ancients."
=>Obama appears as a god to liberals, why go all the way back to the ancients?

"Yes, we'll know the unknowable in time fred,"
=>then you need to redefine "unknowable"
=>knowledge, the known and unknown is not dependent on time nor is time dependent upon the known. Tell me is there something or nothing before time? Is there something or nothing after time?
Just as there can be no firm boundaries on time or space there can be no firm boundaries on the unknowable.

Yes, we have good ideas on what we don't know, that is how we are able to ask questions.
If we don't know what we are looking for we can't ask questions.
What we don't know are the answers to the questions today, the unknowable is the questions that will arise as a result of tomorrows answers to today's questions.

"Absolute zero", zero degrees kelvin, is a number- a point at the average kinetic energy of molecules has been removed from a system. It's a limit we can approach but never reach.
Everything in physics is limits approaching absolutes. Planks constant, and many other numbers such as e and Pi are irrational which is handy because irrational numbers don't impose a limit to the degree of accuracy that we can measure something.
Irrational numbers are a good example of the "unknowable." We'll never know the value of Pi, or e, but we make prediction based upon these irrational numbers every day.
I can easily explain how it is possible that Pi is an irrational number with limits, but because Pi is a limit it will never have an exact value.
I see the world in terms of calculus...limits and bounded functions; not absolutes.
For a good read I suggest the wikipedia article on absolute zero.

October 30, 2013 at 10:11 pm |

Barcs

Hilarous, Fred. By your logic, anything unknowable is god, so why is it that things in the past that were unknowable ended up being knowable? LEARN SCIENCE. It's not that complicated and will answer any question you have about what has been studied.

And even to one specific god out of the thousands from which to choose?

October 31, 2013 at 9:55 am |

Religion is NOT healthy for children and other living things

Oh yeah, all of that SCIENCE that allows our ENTIRE human race to live better lives, maintain better health and create a better world is all bunk because some random group of ancient letters written thousands of years ago by uneducated and primitive prophets says something totally illogical and different from our very SUCCESSFUL, LOGICAL and completely PROVEN set of scientific facts! Oh Yeah, that makes SO MUCH sense, huh? HA! HA! HA! Woo Hoo!

October 31, 2013 at 1:02 pm |

StudentofKnowledge

Even a basic biology class will teach you(and I would know, seeing as I am currently a student of science) that nothing can be "proven" as you say(although there can be a heavy amount of evidence to support it, at best it is still a theory).

And who says that Christians don't agree with Science, they love Science, they actively seek to know more just as the so-called atheist scientist does. If you go into an experiment with a bias then of course any result that necessarily agrees with your assumption is "proof". Now then, what I believe is that life exists, and just as in math some things can never be proven, who is to say that certain concepts in science can always be proven?

October 31, 2013 at 7:15 pm |

redzoa

@StudentofKnowledge – I certainly agree with your point that the natural sciences don't rely on "proof" and that "proof" is really only available in mathematics and formal logic. However, if you reread the above post, its author is referring to "facts." Whereas scientific hypotheses and theories cannot be "proven" per se, many of the facts that emerge from scientific investigation can be "proven" in the sense that they are readily discernible. For example, one could say it has been "proven" that DNA is the principal hereditary molecule for life on this planet, that it has a distinct chemical composition, etc. One could also say that it has been "proven" that DNA changes in a population over time and that some changes yield advantageous functionality for the individuals bearing these genetic changes. One could also say that it has been "proven" that a given fossil exists, that it was recovered from a particular geologic strata, that it was recovered in between strata containing similar but distinct forms, and that it bears particular features which bridge these similar but distinct forms. But again, that these scientific facts are "proven" is distinguishable from the scientific hypotheses and theories explaining how these facts came to be and how these facts relate to one another.

I wonder if someone claimed they had a tax receipt from Salvation Army signed by Santa if multiple lines of evidence could be established to support the claim?
Perhaps a tax return showing deductions of business relocation expenses of the Santa Toy operations from the North to the South pole?
News video's of the move in progress?
Angry Elves news forum?
A time line from the project manager?
These things might come into existence for the sake of fun.
And that's the point. Believing in things that aren't there is fun!
In a way, Santa is kept purposefully set aside as a false omniscient god that rewards good and punishes evil.
This can be used to teach misinformation on how to discern the real god from false gods. The answer typically being; "God answers prayers." which is illogical since Santa did too.
Imagine a time when recreation consisted of telling stories or perhaps gazing at the deep heavens and darkness outside. Good stories caught on for a reason. They became good stories that people were willing to die for.
And it still persists; "My stories are better that your stories because mine are true!"
The problem arises because some see science as a story to be weighed against a "true belief."
But science is not a story. It is what we understand to be true and that understanding is based in real evidence that can be measured and observed in nature.

October 31, 2013 at 11:50 pm |

Jim J.

If the Bible is made up, and Noah never built the Ark, how come there's still animals on Earth?
Checkmate atheists.

How come there are any people left? Everyone should have been stoned to death, for one thing or another, by now. Except for the last man or woman. So do you think the last stoner was a pregnant woman who gave birth to a boy who she knew and gave birth from his seed a girl, who layeth with the boy and started the whole thing over again? Just trying to figure out the apologetics on this one...

October 31, 2013 at 6:15 pm |

GOOD NEWS

"They refuse to look at the real world.
They refuse to look at the Evidence we have, and they offer none," Silverman said.

The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.